# FILED
July 1, 1998 Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Cou rt Clerk 

## IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

WILLIAM MICHAEL ANDERTON, ) ) Plaintiff/Appell

ant, ) Williamson Chancery ) No. 22482 VS. ) ) Appeal No. EVELYN ADELE MORGAN ANDERTON, ) 01A01-9701-CH-00013 ) Defendant/Appellee. ) 

## OPINION ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

Mr. Anderton has filed a Tenn. R. App. P. 39 petition for r

ehearing and

a Tenn. R. App. P. 14

motion to consider post-

judgment facts with

regard to his actua

l gross income in 1996 and 1997. Ms. Anderton has f iled a response to these motions. We have determined tha

t Mr. Anderton’s motions should be grante d.
Our June 5, 19 9 8 opinion addressed issues concerning Mr. A nderton’s child support and spousal support obligations. We determined that the trial court’s failure to follow the child suppo

rt guidelines resulte

d in Mr. Anderton

paying child support in amounts far less than what the guidelines requir

ed. Accordingly,

we remanded the case to the trial court for the second time to set Mr. Anderton’s child supporti n accordance with the guidelines and to determine th e amount of and make arrangements for paym ent of the child sup port arrearage.
On the issue of spousal support, we determined that the trial co urt ha d overstated Mr. Anderton’s a bility to pay rehabilit

ative spousal support in light of the correct amount of his c hild support obligation a nd his actual income.

We also determined that Ms. Anderton s houl d r eceive rehabilitative rather than long-term spousal support. Thus, w e found that Ms. And

erton was entit

led to rehabilitative sp ousal sup port for ten years beginning from the date of the original 1995 divorce decree and that the amount of this support be gin ning in October 1996 sho uld be $3,000 per month.-2- In his petition for rehe

aring, Mr. Anderton re

quests this court to re

consider its disposition

of the spousal support issue and (1) to decrease th e term of Ms. Anderton’s rehabilitative suppo rt, (2) to decrease t

he amount of

his spousal support to $2,000 per month, an

d (3) to order that this decreased amount of child support relate back to the date of th

e original divorce.In support of his petition for rehea

ring, Mr. Anderton has filed copies of his 1996 and 1997 W-2 Wage and Ta x Statements showing that his actual net monthly income in 1996 was approxima tely $6,200 and that his actual net monthly income in 1997 was approximately $8,00 0. Our original decision to set Mr. Andert

on’s spousal support at $ 3,000 per month was based on evidence that his net earning potential was $9,150 per mo nth. In light of the postjudgment facts concerning hi s actual income for 1996 and 1997, we have determined that the amount

of Mr. Anderton’s spousal support obligation beginning in October 1996 should be reduced f rom $3,000 as refle

cted in our original op

inion to $2,000.

We affirm

all other portions of

our earlier opinion relating to Mr. Anderton’s childsupport and spousal support obligations. W e remand the case

to enable the trial courtto calculate the correct amount of Mr. Anderton’s child support obligation since June 1995, to determine t he amount of arrearage, if any, of Mr. A nderton’s child support and spousal support obliga tions, and to establis

h appropriate arr

angements for paying down the child support arrearage in a way that reim

burses Ms. Andert

on for her expenditures for the children or otherwise benefi

ts the children.

__________________________________ HENRY F. TODD, PRESIDING JUDGE MIDDLE SECTION

__________________________________ BEN H. CANTRELL, JUDGE

__________________________________ WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., JUDGE